Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz!jrusso From: jrusso@topaz.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Language Wars Message-ID: <11341@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 22-Apr-87 20:10:31 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.11341 Posted: Wed Apr 22 20:10:31 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Apr-87 04:07:23 EST References: <8704210744.AA10632@ingres.Berkeley.EDU> <3868@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> Reply-To: jrusso@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jim Russo star@gold) Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 107 Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Language Wars Summary: Expires: References: <8704210744.AA10632@ingres.Berkeley.EDU> <3868@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> Sender: Reply-To: jrusso@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jim Russo star@gold) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Keywords: In article <3868@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> ma183say@sdcc3.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Lee Fountain) writes: >>Mike is speaking from an abstract point of view. You do not appear to >>understand the difference between that and a worms-eye view of a language. > >(*Picture->SteveMartin)WellExcuuuuuuuseMe, but I think I do. Not >*ABSTRACT* but *GENERIC*. You see, anyone can claim that a shallow >generalistic statement that does not really say anything one way or >the other is *ABSTRACT*! HA! What a >lame<, passive excuse. Clearly >when this approach is used, qualification of the facts is not >necessary. Sorry, but your coming off like a real idiot: The point that these people are trying to make is that on the simplest level, Modula-2 code and C code are damn near 90% identical with one word substituted for another- They represent NO difference in programming psychology- Smalltalk and C++ ( two examples that were mentioned) are a VERY different approach to programming- a well written Smalltalk program and a well written C programming have very little in common- a C program and a Modula program are extremely similar- Modula is a bit more Modular, but to implement modules in C is almost trivial. And as far as HOW the code of the modules and procedures is written, they are almost identical. A "better" language from the standpoint Mike is backing is totally different, with the language itself tailoring itself to the application. > The point was the *ABILITY* or method used to achieved possibly >same ends (C/M2), but h_ll, you could say that driving from Ca to >New York is the same in a VW or a Porsche. (I, for one, would rather >the Porsche). And if you could take a learjet ( a totally different approach to travel) that would be preferable to driving 3000 miles in a porsche, and a LOT less tiring. >>The kind of differences that you point out are pretty obvious, for one >>thing, and for another, they are at the level where *all* languages are >>different. Thus you trivialize Mike's comments, which actually were >>quite valid whether you agree with the editorial side of them or not. > > If the points are so obvious, then why must you *point out* that >fact! >Recuerda, por favor, that the >*WHOLE* ideology of these interplays has been in *USAGE*, not theory >(but Mike statements would not support *any* theory...). Lets not be insulting here.. state your point and dont insult his point when it was more well made than yours. And the points were obvious, if you had studied anything about different programming methods. You speak from the viewpoint of someone who has used nothing but strictly procedural languages, and nothing else. You dont seem to know what a different TYPE of language is. Try comparing Modula to prolog. They come from fundamentaly different ideas of how to program; and if you try to compare them merely as two procedural languages, prolog will semm horrible, when actually for certain applications, its FANTASTIC. > > Don't be such an idiot in defending something that you don't > wholistically understand. I, for one, am getting sick and tired > of people who *think* that they see flaws in one thing or another, > and go on rambling how they are so right, blah blah blah. > Clarify, don't exemplify with rubbish. >>To an average programmer, every language and dialect is importantly >>different than all others. >>To a language designer, most languages look more similar than different, >>because he considers more abstract issues. For example, although Modula-2 >>is more strongly typed than C, the really important issue is that neither >>language allows you to manipulate types as conveniently as you can data. >>This is a horrible inconsistency from a highly abstract point of view. >> >>For pragmatic reasons, C and Modula-2 can both be good languages to >>implement things in. For theoretical reasons, languages like Smalltalk >>and FP are much cleaner. >> Doug Merritt ucbvax!ingres!hatcher > > Sh_t! FP? Who the h_ll uses FP? Backus' dusty old language is of Dont be such an ass. I dont know FP, but it MAY be great, if youd just open your eyes to the possibility of something being DIFFERENT. > Golly gosh darn, Lisp can be totally functional, but the option is > up to the programmer. Shoot, Lisp is about the best thing since > sliced air. Smalltalk? Ni. If I wanted Smalltalk, I'd implement > it in Lisp. And the option to use something totally beyond your beloved modula2 shouldnt be denied as foolish. Instead of making fun of those guys, why dont you try listening them without acting as if an attack on C or Modula-2 was an attack on your own personal ego. They are making a VERY valid, significant point if only youd open your mind enough to consider that there are things beyond Niklaus Wirths languages. > Gosh, thanks for pointing out so sharply my shallow, simplistic > thinking, and for God's sake, for not getting caught up in what > really matters. Your are thinking very simplistically! And their points DID matter! > John Mark C. Carroll By the way, anyone know where I can find C++ for the Amiga? Reply to: ...!rutgers!carroll@aim.rutgers.edu Crossposted by Jim Russo, since Marks Unirot is down.